wherever you are with the free c-span radio app. during this election season, the candidates view of the talking points are only over time. but since you cannot be everywhere, we have c-span. our campaign 2020 programming differs from all of their political coverage for one simple reason. we brought you your view of government every day since 199. this year we are bringing you an unfiltered view, this november. in other words, your future. so this election season, unfiltered. see the biggest picture for your self. make up your own mind. the cspan campaign 2020. runcie was a public service by your television provider.

>> president and ceo of the center for european policy analysis to talk about russian influence. i want to share two headlines with you interviewers. they say russia boosting trump candidacy. ... ... ... in both heard through reporting and leaked information is the russians are trying to support

operations through social media both president trump and bernie sanders. we learn from the mueller report, exactly what the russians were doing with facebook, twitter, et cetera. do they still exist on those platforms in the platforms they still did that leading up to the platform in 2016. cement that seems like a very straightforward question but there's not a straightforward answer. the reason for that is this 2016 social media company got much better at identifying and taking down what they call ineffective coordinated behavior. there instances of when russian, iran, china are trying to manipulate the social media platforms to push a certain message. they've gotten very good at this. as a result, the adversary, the russians in this place have also adapted. one of the things we learned from the intelligence briefing

is they usere these things to make it much more detect when is a twitter account a russian troll or box, when is it an american citizen? that of course is free speech protected by the first amendment. it's veryic difficult to know now and that's a huge challenge. what we are seeing is protects free speech afford interference. >> what did the russians, iranians, chinese feel it's the most effective way to interfere? >> that's a good question. i thinkk incentives are very different for all of these countries. for the russians of course, their intent has always been to throw chaos and division to amplify the issues we have. it's no secret we have lots of things t that divide us in the united states, the russian tioperations in 2016 and the ones we are hearing about now, are not inventing those socialci divisions, they are really trying to push on those hot

button issues, immigrations, race relations, economic inequality, to try to make us feel more divided. the reasons they have been supporting sanders and trump as we haves learned, is they see these two candidates as potentially divisive for the united states. they want to throw that kind of chaos and division. see mechlin's interviewers involved with the conversation your questions and comments about these news stories. republican 2,027,488,001, democrats to a 28,418,000 independence 8002 and also texas with their first name, city 2,027,882,003. what are you watching for on russian interference? >> i am much more concerned about cyber breaches in cyber attacks more so than the operations. i have no doubt they are happening. as we speak they have been happening since 2016 and lead

up to 2020. it's increasingly difficult to detect, i am much more concerned about a information, a breach into our security systems whether big government security, election machines, the actual infrastructure of apparatus in this country. li know from 2016 with some of the intelligence reports were made public including the mueller report. the russian are playing around in our voter databases. so where we register to vote you can easily imagine a situation where just one small town, one municipality, you show up to vote you are not registered. and you are turned away. and just thattt little drop of concern, the elections have somehow not been fair would really do a lot of damage. >> why does it concern you? is it because of the way the government has responded to the 2016 interference? >> i think our response has

really been understated, and much much lower than the actual threat. so for example the united states government still does not have, what we call a coordinated strategy to response information operations. we know it's not just theat russians playing the russian playbook is now global. we have the eye iranians, we have the chinese. i am much more concerned about 2020 because now it's not just dealing with one bad actor, the russians. it is dealing with russia, and iran, angina, and other groups that are interested in either making a quick buck or really trying to undermine our electoral process. and i think because of our political climate on this issue has really, really been not at all efficient or an f. >> scottsville virginia jay is an independent what your comment or question on this? >> i wase, wondering if the

presenter could explain. [inaudible] domestic tranquility andan democracies and the way it lies with our president deconstruction of thens administrative process of our republic? and it's all about deacons direction democracy. thank you. >> host: refiling? >> guest: i find that collars the collars question correctly, there is a concern that there is a desire by mr. putin, i think to undermine our democracy and to lead to chaos. i think that is certainly at the top of my concern and should be at the top of policymakers concern as well. >> host: what should policymakers be doing then? >> guest: there's a couple of

things i've written a couple papers over the years so i have quite a few recommendations. first and foremost, we need to set up a government response. the u.s. government is huge, we all know that. we are not coordinating with the differente agencies. one example is the department of homeland security is obviously responsible for everything that happens in the homeland. but our response center for dealing with a taxes at the state department which of course has no mandate to deal with anything that is happening in the homeland. so we need to have a new agency or unit or task force that many european parties have set up to help us really craft up strategic response and raise awareness among americans. a not every troll or bought on twitter something we should care about.s obviously not. but americans also need to be aware of when is there a situation happening or when there's not one.

healing people have access is our intelligence agencies. >> tom and givens berg ohio, republican. >> caller: yes i would like to have someone explain to me what you p can possibly predict or how i'm good to vote? be one how can russian influence or change how he plans to vote? >> guest: he can't there's no evidence in 2016 the russian disinformation which there are millions of people on facebook and twitter change some of his behavior. we have know if showing that. if i see on my social media feeded icon facebook and i see an ad i see trump is great, bernie is great, is that gonna change my vote? it's really hard to show that. their intention again, was not necessarily to change individual choices, it was to shift the narrative. to try to have chaos and

division. in that sense they have been successful amplifying those divisions. >> host: matt dominic cracked a transient democratic color. >> caller: how do you feel about voting -- electronic voting companies like shadow inca t running the voting process and getting donations from people like pete buttigieg? >> to be honest, i can't speak to the kinds of donations you are referring to from canada buttigieg or others. i think my concern when it comes to voting in general, is those machines are very vulnerable. they are not prepared to respond to a massive cyber attacks but they are very prepared for adversaries. we are using all kinds of machines some are from the year 2000 when we had almost contested election between bush and gore. if you think how far technology is, it's very easy

to see why those machines are very, very vulnerable to enter fairness in cyber breaches. democratic collar from maryland. >> caller: the reason why i am calling we have to stop this at the point where it went wrong. first evolve the it's broken, if it wasn't all that's going out would not be going on. it's a reality, americans because time changes everything makes us forget. the only national rights we had in this country, i can tie this because i'm a native american. i come from a reservation in south dakota. we are not given the same's rights as the american people we don't have a physical address to vote. my point being, this system is broke and no one is fixing it. we have those held up in by

mitch mcconnell, they are taking money from russia. we should not have interference in the one democracy that our founding fathers and a lot of my native american babel and founded for this country. the stand up and start realizing that just to get worse.th it's been five i fully agree with the caller, congress is a most polarized we've seen in history and also one of the reasons why we have not passed effective legislation to deal with foreign interference. it's also why we are show concerned about 2020 because it is still an open playing ngfield. even the there is a massive attack in 2016 they carried out on the united states elections have not been severe enough to deter future kinds of interference. >> host: here is a tweets with

this comment can the guest please comment on missus hill's about ukraine and russia meddling? >> guest: to the, is referring to fiona hill, who was the senior director for russia and the national security council until she resigned over the summer, and then testified in the house impeachment inquiry. her testimony was impact credibly powerful to my mind because she pointed out how disinformation narrative, and what she was referring to there is there's a conspiracy theory and it is a conspiracy there's no proof or evidence that somehow the server, work hillary clinton's e-mails were kept in 2016 isto in ukraine.ha this really has no evidence at all. i just want to amplify that as much as i can. but lawmakers were questioning this conspiracy theory, i think they see how deep that is, the russians amplify this

conspiracy theory can really affect a public discourse, and really get into the minds of our policymakers as well. at the time, i think i tweeted that this information campaign that the ukrainians were the ones interfering in our election in 2016 and not the russians, may be the greatest success of the russian intelligent agencies but comes to operations. spieth one in the meantime was russian enduring in the ukraine? >> guest: the ukraine has always been a test lab for russian cyber attacks, interference operations, and the reason i brought up cyber attacks is because if you look at what the russians have within ukraine, what they've been testing. they have been testing cyber weapons increasinglyea powerful ways of taking down networks, denial of service attacks, the most expensive cyber attack in history happened in ukraine in 2017, it's called not pit set it didn't just state in

ukraine because we live in a globalized digital society. it's affecting more than 65 countries cost millions of minds of dollars. these are the kinds of concerns that i have. that we see a russian attack on our critical infrastructure system. for example on our waterways, on our electrical grids. the russians have managed to take down electrical grids in ukraine that basically called judgment because a blackout right around the holidays. can you imagine that happening in the u.s.? the reality is these are all possible scenarios and i think we need to be much more aggressive in responding to these i operations. >> host: pennsylvania virginia is an independent. >> caller: i just wanted to say i think we give the russians too much credit and too much power. the democrats have not been the fact thater trump is one, it has been four years now almost, when you

have that type of advertisement, just like the whole engagement thing. that was going on every day in their mentioning russia. they don't get into the way people vote, they just don't. everybody meddled in the election, but the democrats meddled in it, the republicans meddled in it but ultimately people make their own decisions based on they arty have their minds made up, pretty much. >> guest: i think the caller is right again there is no evidence there's content on social media in 2016 change the way of voter in michigan or pennsylvania or anywhere else are really voted. thi think there is a bigger reality here. when we are talking about foreign interference, we have

our domestic politics we have fights between the political parties et cetera. asan part of democracy that confrontation. the problem with our founding fathers were concerned withh his foreign powers tried to come into our domestic politics, that is exactly what the russians did in 2016. and are set to do in 2020 it seems. to me that is the bigger concern. i don't want to overestimate the power influence that vladimir putin has in our society, course the russians do not. to be n honest, if we have a coordinated strategic approach, you can easily deter this problem for happening again. that because of our internal politics and the kind of divisions we have here, we have not been able to do so. so we should not underestimate the reality that there was a cyber breach in 2016, the data was stolen from the servers, and then licked out on social media. that is not a normal part of

democratic politics. >> host: she is the president ford sociology from emory university. women independent from new york. >> caller: good morning. what i'm about to say may sound like maybe a little reactive and there are ramifications. however, i think that since these countries are infiltrating into our networks, a little retribution , if russia is doing it, take putin's money. i understand he was from a kernel to being worth 250 zillion dollars. you take his money his personal bank account, you bury that money and you let him know that we will give it

back if you come clean and quits interfering in the same with the chinese, with the iranians, you have to -- when you're being bullied you have to be prepared to punch somebody in the mouth. >> guest: in some ways i agree with the caller we have no idea how much money putin has. people think he may have that they think he's been of the russian people to skim off the top. we have the united states in coordination with thehe european allies and post personal sanctions on quite a few russian oligarchs, which does include freezes of a certain nature. i think if we are going to take them much more aggressive step of really targeting the leader of russia, that would be a quite big step in our retaliation process. i think the idea that we have

a stronger coordinated response to deterer these kinds ofe activities in the future, is right on point. we have not done that. that is why we are talking about 2020. if we reacted in 2017 right interference came to light from the intelligence reports and the mueller report, we would not be where we are today. >> host: why not? >> i think we would've sent a stronger message if we would've had stricter sanctions on russia if we had for example gone on the cyber offensive against them, these are very controversial topics because once you go cyber offensive you have to be ready for the retaliation. you punch somebody no second punch you right back. we could've taken much stronger steps to send the message you do not interfere, it doesn't happen again. and we certainly have not done so.so >> host: democratic caller from california. >> caller: i have another

question, when we started impeaching trump, i went to my representative to fights. it comes to. [inaudible] ie close it because they say no. i wonder if that is the way they tried to get us on certain things and make them false or something? >> host: is that the way the russians or the other countries try to get to people like eva by these pop up poles if she clicks on yes now they have information or et cetera? >> guest: it's really hard to tell who is doing what. the reality of this domestic groups that are interested and once the local versus another, the toolkit is the same. what the russians did in 2016

isn't anything sophisticated for the tools where they are on facebook to target individuals, to deliver specific content means whatever directly to your newsfeed. advertisers do this all the time when you are in social media and you see an ad for something you might like, the reason you're seeing that is because the networks are tracking your behavior online, advertisers know exactly they want to hit a specific demo graphic. nike wants to sell its new sneaker to young boys ages 16 to 20 and the suburbs of chicago. they can target at that level. that's exactly what the russian said and that's what others do. think the reality is the toolkit is the same, it's easy to use it's easy to deliver, whatever information to whatever group of people you like, alsoso white so difficult to know, is this a russian operation or another kind of deliberate manipulation. or is in a local group that is trying to stress its abuse and

interest? >> host: are gonna go to john and manchester, connecticut. a republican. >> caller: goodll morning ladies thank you for taking my call. as far as i am concerned, this a business russian irrelevant. is there isey not proof that whatever they tried to do to influence americans changed anybody's vote. it wasn't because of the russian interference that hillary clinton skipped three states she could have easily won in the 2016 election. the only real interference in our elections, comes from the media. the media is all over with people laughing at donald trump, saying it did not have a chance, they were assuring as that trump would never get elected. and ever since he got elected,

sis the same thing. it's negativity on top of negativity. as on cnn certainly in ns and bc, and even fox news got into the act. the "washington post", the "new york times", it is all negativity against trout. nobody deserves to be treated that way. they are at it again. they are even going after sanders. they took the media out of the ones who could shape public opinion. thank you. >> guest: i think the caller brings up a question others have aspirate just to be clear, we do have proof from social media companies for multiple u.s. intelligence agencies and also from researchers who have verified this information. there was a targeted attack, carried out by the russian government, with the russian

intelligent agencies in 2016. that consisted of this information campaign in social media.a. also the leak of information from the dnc and the clinton campaign. the colors also write what we don't have proof of his individual voters change their minds and decided not to vote for clinton or someone else or vice versa. that kind of information is very difficult to get our hands on but there is a reality that very, very, very real russiansd attacked our democracy and all of these various ways.f again, think if we don't pay attention and we leave the door open for others to do the same. >> host: rick council bluffs republican. >> caller: good morning, i think there are two people, democrats and the news media

that are -- i think the ones who really have to worry about are the ones we can see are the mexican neighbors, they are bringing them all in and bring these illegals in voting in the local elections and stuff. they're getting their foot in the door, i think that is to is really getting into our elections. >> host: rick at that you're done there. we will go to george who is in new jersey, democratic caller. >> caller: hi, i want to talk about the three states were there suddenly 6000 votes and the gas can speak to anecdotally myself, when i was on twitter, i was witness people making the sanders voters seem aggrieved that they were harmed by missus clinton and they should

transfer their votes.. i've find it there is no proof, there's no proof. of course there's never going to be proof unless you can maybe get out there and try to get back in sample, in my mind 76000 votes there's a hundred 50000 votes in myy little county here new jersey. this thing called circumstantial evidence that enough people were influenced this no proof thing gives the narrative that it will never be proven therefore never was. i just wish that alina would speak to that about those three states and also the continuing ongoing thing with mr. sanders as well. >> guest: again this is such a difficult issue and we are talking about how other foreign actors try to shape our political discourse.

it feels not very clear. we have no proof that person x voted differently because of something they saw on facebook.. but it's a slow drip, right? it's a slow drip of a certain kind of narrative individual at a certain kind of liable around a specific local figure. i just want to make it clear this is not new. we are not experiencing a new moment in our politics. but theki soviet union carried out these kinds of character assassinations in u.s. elections against specific candidates fortit decades. they tried to spread all kinds of nasty stuff about martin luther king in it, about jackson who is a candidate running for the presidency in the 1970s. they planted the entire conspiracy theory that hiv was a virus created in his secret cia lab in the united states in order to kill off

african-americans and africans in africa. gay and lesbianle minorities. all of this was conspiracy theory. but it was so effective that it started to undermine u.s. diplomatic efforts in africa for example, and it even got to the point in the 80s were president reagan at the time, when he was having the talks with then president or chair of the communist party gorbachev, actually brought it to his attention on a one-on-one meeting. is well documented. he's like cut this stuff out we are notth going to have a deal. why did he say that? because it was hurting the perception of the united states across the world. it was hurting our interest with allies and partners. so i think again, we have to understand it's not about the individual, what the individual did. it's about shaping and narrative about global events in the long term blood very detrimental effects of the united states. >> host: 's is primarily with the center for european policy

does? >> yes theia center for european policy analysis that iat now had, our main agreement is to really understand where the relationship is going. i mention partners and allies quite a fewqu time, whether that be sanction policies against russia, whether it be how we are trying to counter china now. the realities of the united states cannot go at it alone. we need our european partners and allies to help us respond, to help us deter, and to help secure our national security. russia is one of the key threats we focus on only comes to understanding what is at stake for the alliance. >> host: who funds or group customer. >> it's like any nonprofit organization, i make it clear we are nonpartisan. we are nonprofit. so we do not take any local stance and anything i say does not represent the views of the organization which takes no views on anything. these are my use as an expert on some of these issues. we have funding from some u.s.

government funding, individuals are very generous, private foundations, and some corporate funding. >> host: michael independent from florida. >> caller: hi, i woulden like to know, you're always always talking about russian influence ourkiel elections. how about we influence elections and other countries we don't agree with.h. let's take venezuela for example. it's never nationalcu security does, but we have been pulling sections on then we are the big kid on the block and now we are down in bolivia messing with their economy. maybe we should play that? >> guest: u.s. interference in elections. look, i will be the first one to say the u.s. does not have a clean record and some of our foreign policy decisions. talks about south america we go into iraq and our policymakers think that was not a great idea in hindsight to say the very least. so i think the difference though is that in a democracy like the united states, we

eventually talked about those errors in those mistakes. we usually do hold people accountable when these kinds of blunders happen. so we don't have a clean lecord by any means, but we acknowledge our mistakes. i hope we learn from them, that's really not the issue in russia and china where there is no public debate about what the chinese government might be doing to its own people for example, what the russian governmentig might be doing for its own people and elsewhere across the world. >> host: bruce, dearborn heights, michigan. republican. >> caller: could hear me? alina, if you wrote this article europe is starting to tackle disinformation and you mention the atlantic council is that right? >> guest: yes i used to work with the atlantic council and myco author of the article is still there.

>> guest: it's a globalist organization that is really trying to censor journalism. talk about ig, talk about they don't let immigration. these are the people who are really censored the atlantic council, which is now working. i think this whole thing about russian interference is just a big i joke. i have been on this four times and the minute i talk about ig, which is a threat to our health, privacy, and our freedom, we are just there are many organizations. [inaudible] which is a global c now.

[inaudible] >> host: alright bruce, pal just be our breaking up. >> guest: i does have a quick comment, i did work there one point in my career. but just like sepa wishes for and policy analysis i head, is also nonprofit nonpartisan organization. all the funding sources are public, you can on the it out. go on our website too. and i'm not really sure the call is referring to, he's makes me think of another organization to be honest. my experience at work in the nonprofit world, these types of organizations thatec they support self-support open-source journalism. an organization called bellin kat for example, see when we have to leavele it there you can find more information ce pa.org, alina, thank you for the conversation. >> c-span "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact

you. coming up tuesday morning, we will talk about the democratic net primary with political reporters from some of this super tuesday states. and discuss super tuesday with the managing editor of the university of virginia. watch c-span's "washington journal", live at seven eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. ♪ ♪ >> here is a look at our live coverage tuesday. on c-span the house is back at 10:00 a.m. eastern for general speeches followed by legislative business at noon. members are considering for bills from the foreign affairs committee including one that would condemn continued violence against civilians in the central african republic. then in the evening, our campaign 2020 coverage includes the results of super tuesday, which has the remaining democratic candidates going for 14 delegates and 14 states in one

territory. that is underway 7:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span2, the senate is working on a geothermal research and development bill. and on c-span three at 10:00 a.m. eastern, public health officials from the centers for disease control and prevention, the national institutes of health and the food and drug administration, testify on capitol hill about the coronavirus outbreak, and the federal response. >> during this election season, the candidates beyond the talking points are only revealed over time. but since you can't be here everywhere, there is c-span. our campaign 2020 program differs from all other political coverage for one simple reason, it c-span. he brought to your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979. this year we are bringing you an unfiltered view of the people this november. in other words, your future. so this election season, go

deep, direct, and unfiltered. to the biggest picture for yourself and make up your own mind. with c-span, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> next to look at how campaigns plan to engage with nonvoters this election cycle. politico in the knight foundation held a form to discuss the knight foundation's release of a new study that focused on the political behavior and attitudes of nonvoters. they also address how this data could be used to target certain people to vote for a certain candidate. [applause] cement good morning and welcome. i am peter canalis politico's editor at large. i want to thank you all for joining today's cement, america's bst